Vega FE benchmarked by random dude

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Don't worry, though! It isn't a gaming card! 

it's a GPU

[MoonSpot]

4 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

yeah he is still trying witcher 3 i don't know i've only been watching for about 20 minutes the card is very loud and very hot and trottling is real...it looks like it's an aweful card right now, it's slower than my GTX 1080 by a fair amount in games...about the same in firestrike.

It is a blower fan.

I'm hoping to see them lay the forking hell off the voltage.

 

:edit: NVM its over.

[Drak3]

@valdyrgramr@i_build_nanosuits

The Frontier Edition VEGA card is not a straight 'professional' card. It is literally an in between, filling both the role of Radeon Pro and Radeon RX, doing both fairly well but not the best in either. It's AMD's Titan/Titan Black/Titan Z.

[leadeater]

Vega FE also uses it's own driver fork different from the Radeon and FirePro line of cards. This means that any improvements being made to the Radeon drivers in preparation for the launch of the gaming cards may not all be rolled in to the FE drivers yet.

 

A lot of the gaming focused drivers have to implement tweaks and workarounds for different things like entire game engines, game engine versions or even specific games and some of those might be in violation of strict standards which is why there are different driver forks. A lot of the tweaks could cause the failure of driver certification and may have a performance impact on professional applications that stick to those standards.

 

This is where it gets really damn awkward for Vega FE, it has to roll in both gaming tweaks and professional optimizations in to it's drivers which I'm guessing why there are two modes that may actually be using actual different drivers in those modes.

[Sacriledgy]

4 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

it's a GPU

Its a quadro. 

 

 

But i kinda agree with you, the performance might not be promising. 

 

Oh well, its literally a month away. Got nothing to lose now

[mr moose]

Ahhhhh, the arguments they used against/for the titan have come back to be used for AMD.  Its not a gaming card, it is a gaming card, its not workstation card, it is a workstation card.  

 

 

 

What is in a name, should a titan be called that by any other name, would it not still be over priced for what it does in crysis?

[Valentyn]

9 hours ago, MageTank said:

Really? I thought it was about 3dmark results? I surely hope you don't believe 3dmark scores to be indicative of gaming performance. 

Hey now! There are steam achievements for it. That makes it a real game doesn't it? 

[Valentyn]

Something is really up, an overclocked Fury X on normal "stock" cooling is beating the Frontier Edition that's at 1600mhz

How the hell does Vega at 1600Mhz lose to Fiji at 1125Mhz

 

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/12987144/fs/11047656/fs/6657103#

 

[nawaf]

This could be very bad for AMD. We should wait for more bench's but i doubt it will gain any more performence than 5%. This is very bad for us. Nvidia will screw consumers with more overpirced cards, because theres no competition 

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, nawaf said:

This could be very bad for AMD. We should wait for more bench's but i doubt it will gain any more performence than 5%. This is very bad for us. Nvidia will screw consumers with more overpirced cards, because theres no competition 

Well that depends, not everyone is wanting to spend 1080Ti kinds of money, there will be more high end options than before but I don't really think anyone was expecting a card faster than the 1080Ti.

[3DOSH]

Something is very wrong here, whether its a driver thing or just the way this particular card works because it got score of  6785 pts in Time Spy, way below a 1080.
And as far as I know driver plays little to no part in DX12 games. I guess time well tell.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Valentyn said:

Something is really up, an overclocked Fury X on normal "stock" cooling is beating the Frontier Edition that's at 1600mhz

How the hell does Vega at 1600Mhz lose to Fiji at 1125Mhz

 

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/12987144/fs/11047656/fs/6657103#

 

I believe Nvidia's DX12 driver on Ryzen is still having issues. Scheduling efficiency matter a lot. (Hyperthreading is wholly an efficient scheduling approach, yet it's pretty massive.)  

 

The FE is a completely different driver stack (unique to the card, it seems). That really matters.  The FE is supposed to do Computer/Render tasks better than a Titan Xp and be able to load Game Engines from one card. It's an all-in-one approach type of card for specific generalized workstation/design tasks.  It seems it'll do that well.

 

I'd really like RX Vega to be here, but, well, it isn't yet.

[JediFragger]

29 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well that depends, not everyone is wanting to spend 1080Ti kinds of money, there will be more high end options than before but I don't really think anyone was expecting a card faster than the 1080Ti.

Imo the current Vega FE level of performance is more like upper-mid tier level for me.

[Valentyn]

6 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I believe Nvidia's DX12 driver on Ryzen is still having issues. Scheduling efficiency matter a lot. (Hyperthreading is wholly an efficient scheduling approach, yet it's pretty massive.)  

 

The FE is a completely different driver stack (unique to the card, it seems). That really matters.  The FE is supposed to do Computer/Render tasks better than a Titan Xp and be able to load Game Engines from one card. It's an all-in-one approach type of card for specific generalized workstation/design tasks.  It seems it'll do that well.

 

I'd really like RX Vega to be here, but, well, it isn't yet.

 

Honestly mate, drivers play very little role in 3D Mark. Even comparing an AIB overclocked 390X against the FirePro W9100 ( downlocked 290X ), there's barely a difference of 2,000 points.

Here We have Vega clocked nearly 50% faster than a Fiji card and still losing. Something is really funky here. Either there's a massive firmware, or hardware issue; or I dunno.

 

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, JediFragger said:

Imo the current Vega FE level of performance is more like upper-mid tier level for me.

Yet there are very few options on the market that are faster from what we have seen so far. We have seen in the past under certain games that Vega FE is supposed to be faster than a 1080, these latest results roughly show this even under the dubious testing conditions. So we have at most 3 cards that could be faster, or 2 since the Titan X might be too close to call it.

 

High end and highest are different.

[Valentyn]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Yet there are very few options on the market that are faster from what we have seen so far. We have seen in the past under certain games that Vega FE is supposed to be faster than a 1080, these latest results roughly show this even under the dubious testing conditions. So we have at most 3 cards that could faster, or 2 since the Titan X might be too close to call it.

 

High end and highest are different.

 

I missed out on buying one by a few seconds yesterday! A place in the UK actually had stock. I really wanted one just to test and play with. Got a Solidworks machine downstairs, and my content creation and gaming up stairs.

Wanted to test it in both, one Ryzen one Haswell-E as well. Annoyed I missed it

 

Although seeing the Firestrike results compared to an overclocked Fury X, and even 980Ti. Something is really off here with the Frontier Edition.

[leadeater]

Just now, Valentyn said:

 

I missed out on buying one by a few seconds yesterday! A place in the UK actually had stock. I really wanted one just to test and play with. Got a Solidworks machine downstairs, and my content creation and gaming up stairs.

Wanted to test it in both, one Ryzen one Haswell-E as well. Annoyed I missed it

 

Although seeing the Firestrike results compared to an overclocked Fury X, and even 980Ti. Something is really off here with the Frontier Edition.

Yea I can OC my dual 290X's on water to faster 3DMark results, I'm inclined to believe the trade show in game tests shown by AMD more which is frankly an odd thing to be doing considering 3DMark vs AMD PR.

[Valentyn]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yea I can OC my dual 290X's on water to faster 3DMark results, I'm inclined to believe the trade show in game tests shown by AMD more which is frankly an odd thing to be doing considering 3DMark vs AMD PR.

 

We also had the PCWorld chaps stating it was close to the 1080Ti in their "hands on" preview.

So I'm not sure what AMD's Marketing is playing at. Refused to source any credible reviewers; and instead launch in some limited quantities allowing any ole joe to mess with them.

[Mr_Troll]

well... those results and specs are rather dissapointing.... considering how much hype amd put into vega....hell my rx 480 CF setup gets better results here and there....imo ... it would be better and cheaper for amd to ....  make a 1080 and 1080ti card ... based on polaris architecture... rather than create a new one...constantly delay it .... and  not  being sure how well it will perform...  if it has the same specs as the RX gaming card... it is going to be in the same ballpark performance wise.... + 10 or 15 % thanks to drivers... 

 

just for comparison.... on the nvidia side

 

 

[Valentyn]

n the brightside folks, the dude test Frontier Edition for mining. It sucks for it. Getting 30-35 MH/s

Also he's getting a joke of a Cinebench OpenGL score, 97.39 FPS

He states no difference in performance between Pro and Gaming driver mode.

 

That Doom 4K score! That's overclocked Fury X levels again!

 

What is going on!

 

[Valentyn]

On the Bright side it seems Frontier Edition competes well against the Quadro P5000; despite the Vega card not being Application Certified for drivers.

[TidaLWaveZ]

16 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

Thread was cleaned again, some post were re-instated.

 

as for all of you, please review the Community Standards as these replies would normally get deleted;

 

You can contact me by PM if anything needs to be discussed.

Honestly none of my comments even got removed in the first place, I just wanted to feel like I was a part of something.

[MoonSpot]

1 hour ago, JediFragger said:

Imo the current Vega FE level of performance is more like upper-mid tier level for me.

 

It's not right when you don't have the correct accompanying visuals for your comment, so I had to add it for ya.

[AlwaysFSX]

20 hours ago, MEC-777 said:

Performance looks to be there, given the circumstances of the testing. I just really hope they can get the power consumption down for the gaming versions. That's the only thing that worries me at this point. 

I'm okay with a card drawing 500W under two conditions:

 

The cooler is more than adequate for dissipating the heat.

The cooler is quiet.

 

[MEC-777]

1 hour ago, AlwaysFSX said:

I'm okay with a card drawing 500W under two conditions:

 

The cooler is more than adequate for dissipating the heat.

The cooler is quiet.

 

I'm not cool with it, because it's 2017 and they're not running 40+ nm chips anymore. Efficiency should be leveling off or going down as performance increases. Not both going up. If they can't at least match the 1080Ti with the top tier RX Vega, then it will be a huge disappointment, IMO. BUT, I will hold my tong until it's officially released.